Organizations: the Department of Computer Science, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China · City University of Hong Kong (Dongguan), Dongguan, China · the School of Computing and Information Sciences, Saint Francis University, Hong Kong SAR, China
Training-free few-step samplers are often described as nearly quality-lossless under conventional FID/CLIP-style evaluation. It remains unclear whether that conclusion transfers to more realistic and complex generation-quality benchmarks. We first systematize the quality metrics used to evaluate training-free sampling acceleration for diffusion and flow-matching models. We find that representative training-free step-shortening methods often remain nearly lossless under FID/CLIP-class metrics, yet can suffer substantial quality degradation when evaluated with semantic-composition, dense-instruction, and long-text-rendering benchmarks such as GenEval, DPG-Bench, and LongTextBench. Parallel sampling is a notable exception: by retaining the full-step discretization and removing only the solver's temporal dependency, it can preserve near-lossless quality while accelerating sampling. Building on this observation, we propose ParaLin++, a step-parity parallel sampler that preserves the full-step discretization while accelerating the solver iterations. Experiments across Stable Diffusion-v2, LSUN Church, FLUX.1-dev, and Ming-Flash-Omni 2.0 show that ParaLin++ preserves the full-step Euler quality profile at 2.6×--4.8×, 1.68× on FLUX, and 1.21× on Ming. Project page: https://paralinplus.github.io/.
Figures & tables
Method
Dist.
T2I-align.
Complex
DDPM [ 22 ]
✓
✗
✗
DDIM [ 57 ]
✓
✗
✗
DPM-Solver [ 42 ]
✓
✗
✗
DPMSolver++ [ 41 ]
✓
✓
✗
DPM-Solver-v3 [ 76 ]
✓
✗
✗
UniPC [ 73 ]
✓
✓
✗
TABLE I: Quality metrics used to evaluate training-free diffusion/flow-matching acceleration in the literature and in this work. “Dist.” = distributional, reference-based metrics of the FID class (FID, sFID, clean-FID, IS, Precision–Recall); “T2I-align.” = text–image alignment metrics (CLIP score, CLIP-FID); “Complex” = generation-quality benchmarks that assess semantic composition, dense instruction following, or in-image text rendering. The acceleration literature usually stops at distributional/text-alignment proxies, whereas this work adds a quality-focused audit. ✓/✗: metric reported / not reported by the method’s own evaluation.
TABLE II: Practical error bounds for diffusion frameworks in the EDM design space. Parameters follow Table 1 of [ 29 ] , with βmin=0.1 , βd=19.9 , and ∥Sθ∗(Xt,t)−ϵt∥<ζ for a small step size h=s−t<1 . Rows give the schedule settings, the σt/αt substitution, and the resulting bound; columns are the diffusion frameworks.
Fig. 1: Illustration of ParaLin++. During iteration k , ParaLin++ performs simultaneous denoising updates across multiple steps. From left to right: existing full nonlinear parallel methods, our partial linear method, and our method for faster convergence.
Steps
Method
Stable Diffusion-v2
Iters ↓
NFE ↓
CLIP ↑
FID ↓
Time (s) ↓
Speedup ↑
50
DDIM [ 57 ]
50
50
25.6
57.2
6.3
1.0 ×
DDIM + ParaDiGMS [ 56 ]
21
132
25.6
56.9
3.3
1.9 ×
DDIM + ParaSolver [ 45 ]
13
83
25.6
56.9
1.9
3.3 ×
DDIM + ParaLin [ 46 ]
13
73
25.6
57.1
1.7
3.7 ×
DDIM + ParaLin++
10
69
25.5
57.0
1.3
4.8 ×
TABLE III: Comparisons on Stable Diffusion-v2, with classifier guidance w = 7.5. The visual comparisons are shown in the supplementary figures.
Steps
Method
LSUN Church
Iters ↓
NFE ↓
FID ↓
Time (s) ↓
Speedup ↑
50
DDIM [ 57 ]
50
50
15.5
1.8
1.0 ×
DDIM + ParaDiGMS [ 56 ]
23
202
15.8
1.5
1.2 ×
DDIM + ParaSolver [ 45 ]
14
73
15.7
0.8
2.2 ×
DDIM + ParaLin [ 46 ]
14
67
15.7
0.6
3.0 ×
DDIM + ParaLin++
9
64
15.7
0.4
4.5 ×
TABLE IV: Quantitative comparisons of different methods on LSUN Church over 5000 samples. DPMSolver is not integrated with the LSUN model in the Diffusers library; thus we exclude it.
Method
Iters
FID ↓
Speedup ↑
DPM-Solver-v3 [ 76 ]
25
2.64
1.00×
DPM-Solver-v3 [ 76 ]
10
3.40
2.43×
UniPC [ 73 ]
10
3.40
2.41×
PD [ 54 ]
10
3.10
2.48×
CD [ 58 ]
10
2.90
2.46×
ParaLin++ + DPM-Solver-v3
10
2.64
2.41×
TABLE V: Less-step sampling on the CIFAR-10 model with 50k samples.
Method
Sampling regime
Discrete steps
Iters ↓
GenEval ↑
DPG-Bench ↑
LongTextBench ↑
Speedup ↑
Euler [ 4 ]
Sequential reference
30
30
0.66
83.97
0.27
1.00×
UniPC [ 73 ]
Few-step
16
16
0.52
77.46
0.09
1.81×
DPMSolver++ [ 41 ]
Few-step
16
16
0.50
75.75
0.08
1.85×
ParaLin++
Step-parity parallel
30
16.37
0.64
84.24
0.26
1.68×
TABLE VI: Motivating comparison on FLUX. Few-step sequential solvers alter the 30-step discretization and sharply degrade semantic composition, complex prompt following, and long-text rendering. ParaLin++ keeps the same 30 discrete diffusion steps and parallelizes the solver iterations. For sequential solvers, “Iters” equals the number of discrete steps; for ParaLin++, it reports the average number of parallel solver iterations.
FLUX.1-dev [ 4 ]
Method
Sampling regime
Steps
Iters
GenEval ↑
DPG-Bench ↑
LongTextBench ↑
Speedup ↑
Euler [ 4 ]
Sequential reference
30
30
0.66
83.97
0.27
1.00×
UniPC [ 73 ]
Few-step
16
16
0.52
77.46
0.09
1.81×
20
20
0.55
79.67
0.13
1.49×
24
24
0.57
80.98
0.15
1.26×
26
26
0.58
81.35
0.16
1.16×
TABLE VII: Detailed generation-quality benchmark results on FLUX and Ming-Flash-Omni 2.0. Within each model block, speedup is measured against that model’s 30-step Euler baseline on the same GenEval generation pass, excluding model loading and scoring. For sequential samplers, “Iters” equals the number of discrete steps; for ParaLin++, it denotes the number of parallel solver iterations.
CFG
Method
Iters
GenEval ↑
DPG ↑
LTB ↑
Speedup ↑
0
Euler [ 4 ]
30
0.60
82.25
0.17
1.00×
UniPC [ 73 ]
20
0.46
78.97
0.08
1.49×
DPM++ [ 41 ]
20
0.43
77.71
0.06
1.49×
ParaLin++
14.79
0.59
82.18
0.15
1.86×
3.5
Euler [ 4 ]
30
0.66
83.97
0.27
1.00×
UniPC [ 73 ]
20
0.55
79.67
0.13
1.49×
TABLE VIII: FLUX.1-dev CFG-sweep results. All benchmark cells (GenEval, DPG-Bench, and LongTextBench) are complete for all five CFG values; LTB abbreviates LongTextBench and DPM++ abbreviates DPMSolver++. “Iters” equals the discrete-step count for sequential baselines and denotes the average measured parallel solver iterations for ParaLin++. Speedup is measured against the 30-step Euler reference at the same CFG on the GenEval generation pass, excluding model loading and scoring.
Fig. 2: Generation-quality benchmark visual comparison on FLUX.1-dev. Each row is one representative benchmark prompt, and the columns show 30-step Euler, 16-step UniPC, 16-step DPMSolver++, and 30-step ParaLin++ (17 parallel solver iterations). Few-step examples retain plausible low-level appearance but can violate semantic composition, dense instructions, or in-image text requirements; ParaLin++ remains visually aligned with the 30-step Euler reference.
Fig. 3: GenEval CFG-sweep visual comparison on FLUX.1-dev. Rows are CFG 0 , 3.5 , 7 , 10.5 , and 14 ; columns are 30-step Euler, 20-step UniPC, 20-step DPMSolver++, and 30-step ParaLin++. All cells use prompt 00000 and sample 0000.
Fig. 4: LongTextBench CFG-sweep visual comparison on FLUX.1-dev, using the English prompt 0000 with variant 1. Rows are CFG 0 , 3.5 , 7 , 10.5 , and 14 ; columns are 30-step Euler, 20-step UniPC, 20-step DPMSolver++, and 30-step ParaLin++. The reported LongTextBench metric averages the English and Chinese scores.
Fig. 5: DPG-Bench CFG-sweep visual comparison on FLUX.1-dev. Rows are CFG 0 , 3.5 , 7 , 10.5 , and 14 ; columns are 30-step Euler, 20-step UniPC, 20-step DPMSolver++, and 30-step ParaLin++. All cells use prompt 100. The complete CFG- 0 – 14 DPG-Bench matrix is reported in Table VIII .
Sampler
Method
Iters ↓
NFE ↓
CLIP ↑
FID ↓
Time (s) ↓
Speedup ↑
DDIM–50
Sequential
50
50
25.6
57.2
6.3
1.0 ×
ParaDiGMS
34
67
25.6
56.9
7.8
0.8 ×
ParaSolver
18
53
25.6
56.9
6.0
1.05 ×
ParaLin
14
51
25.6
57.1
5.7
1.1 ×
ParaLin++
8
32
25.6
57.1
3.2
2.0 ×
DDIM–100
Sequential
100
100
25.6
56.3
10.1
1.0 ×
TABLE IX: Comparisons on Stable Diffusion-v2 when only using one GPU, with classifier guidance w=7.5 . “DPM” denotes DPM-Solver; ParaDiGMS, ParaSolver, ParaLin, and ParaLin++ indicate the corresponding parallel wrappers of the sequential sampler.
Configuration
Solver components
100-step DDIM results
Nonlinearity
Stopping criterion
SOR
Iters ↓
NFE ↓
Time (s) ↓
Speedup ↑
Sequential DDIM
–
–
–
100
100
10.6
1.0×
Full nonlinearity
Full ( ϱ=100 )
Fixed ( β=1.0 )
No ( ω=1.0 )
72
2100
24.4
0.43×
Partial nonlinearity
Partial ( ϱ=8 )
Fixed ( β=1.0 )
No ( ω=1.0 )
18
140
2.1
5.0×
Partial + adaptive stopping
Partial ( ϱ=8 )
Adaptive ( β=0.999 )
No ( ω=1.0 )
17
139
2.0
5.3×
ParaLin++ (partial + adaptive + SOR)
Partial ( ϱ=8 )
Adaptive ( β=0.999 )
Yes ( ω=1.04 )
15
117
1.6
6.5×
TABLE X: Ablation study on Stable Diffusion v2. The table isolates nonlinearity, adaptive stopping, and SOR in the 100-step DDIM task; speedup is measured relative to the sequential DDIM baseline.
Method
EDM Process
VE Process
VP Process
FID
Iters
FID
Iters
FID
Iters
Baseline
11.1649
25
423.0628
25
104.14673
25
ϱ=4
10.8811
22
422.9794
14
35.8963
12
ϱ=6
10.8718
21
422.9293
14
41.1196
10
ϱ=8
10.8621
20
422.8247
13
58.5588
8
ϱ=10
10.8626
15
422.7672
10
58.5215
7
TABLE XI: The impact of nonlinear degree ϱ on FID across EDM, VE, and VP processes over ImageNet dataset. We set δ=0.01,β=9e−4 for the EDM process, δ=0.01,β=9e−7 for VP processes, and δ=0.1,β=9e−5 for the VE process.
Method
FID
CLIP
Iters
NFEs
Speedup
Baseline
57.23
25.64
50
50
1 ×
ϱ=5
57.18
25.55
18
82
2.9 ×
ϱ=10
57.25
25.59
12
101
3.0 ×
ϱ=15
57.14
25.61
11
123
3.1 ×
ϱ=20
57.22
25.60
12
160
2.6 ×
ϱ=25
57.14
25.53
12
202
2.1 ×
TABLE XII: Impact of varying ϱ on generation quality (FID, CLIP) and performance (NFEs, Speedup).
Method
δ=0.01
δ=0.05
δ=0.1
FID
Iters
FID
Iters
FID
Iters
DDIM
57.2
50
57.2
50
57.2
50
β=0.9
59.7
9
58.6
9
57.8
9
β=0.99
57.8
13
57.1
13
56.9
11
β=0.999
57.0
16
56.9
13
56.8
11
β=1.0
57.0
21
57.1
13
57.2
11
TABLE XIII: The effect of the tolerance δ and EMA decay rate β on FID using Stable Diffusion-v2 over 5000 random samples. Our ParaLin++ ( ϱ=8,p=40 ) is employed for DDIM.
Method
FID
CLIP
Iters
NFEs
Speedup
DDIM
57.23
25.64
50
50
1 ×
ω=1
57.20
25.59
11
83
3.81 ×
ω=1.02
57.38
25.57
11
79
3.89 ×
ω=1.04
57.38
25.57
10
70
4.34 ×
ω=1.06
57.24
25.56
9
67
4.76 ×
ω=1.08
58.13
25.12
9
67
4.94 ×
TABLE XIV: Impact of varying ω on generation quality and performance. We set ϱ=8,p=40,β=0.999 .
Fig. 6: Ablation study on parameters. The first row shows the results for different values of ϱ . The second row shows the results for different values of β . The third row shows the results for different values of ω . The last image in each row represents the baseline comparison.
Diffusion models have achieved remarkable success in generating high-fidelity content but suffer from slow, iterative sampling, resulting in high latency that limits their use in interactive applications. We introduce DRiffusion, a parallel sampling framework that parallelizes diffusion inference through a draft-and-refine process. DRiffusion employs skip transitions to generate multiple draft states for future timesteps and computes their corresponding noises in parallel, which are then used in the standard denoising process to produce refined results. Theoretically, our method achieves an acceleration rate of n1 or n+12, depending on whether the conservative or aggressive mode is used, where n denotes the number of devices. Empirically, DRiffusion attains 1.4×-3.7× speedup across multiple diffusion models while incur minimal degradation in generation quality: on MS-COCO dataset, both FID and CLIP remain largely on par with those of the original model, while PickScore and HPSv2.1 show only minor average drops of 0.17 and 0.43, respectively. These results verify that DRiffusion delivers substantial acceleration and preserves perceptual quality.
Runsheng Bai, Chengyu Zhang, Yangdong Deng
CSAIL, MIT · IST, Nanjing University · School of Software, Tsinghua University; FuturististAI Lab, Shanghai Tsinghua International Innovation Center
Sampling latency compounds in diffusion workflows, where users generate and discard many candidates before keeping one. Surprisingly, the poor outputs of standard few-step samplers do not reflect a lack of reconstruction capacity: by optimizing only the initial noise, frozen 3-4-step samplers can closely reproduce their corresponding full-step outputs. Building on this finding, we learn corrections to the initial noise and denoising updates using endpoint supervision, improving correspondence with full-step outputs generated from the same noise and prompt. The resulting previews allow users to screen candidates cheaply and reserve full-step generation for promising ones. Input correction also transfers across sampling budgets without retraining. Experiments show substantial improvements in reference fidelity, including 53-78% lower reconstruction MSE than retrained LD3 on unconditional benchmarks, alongside improved ranking preservation and candidate selection on SD1.5, SDXL, and FLUX.1-dev.
Jing Jia, Sifan Liu, Guanyang Wang
Department of Computer Science, Rutgers University · Department of Statistical Science, Duke University · Department of Statistics, Rutgers University
Diffusion large language models (dLLMs) offer a promising alternative to autoregressive decoding by iteratively refining masked sequences, enabling parallel token updates and bidirectional conditioning. Their practical efficiency, however, is limited by sampling procedures that execute a fixed number of reverse denoising steps selected before decoding, spending computation on already-stable positions and sometimes committing unstable ones too early. We present LESS, a training-free, model-agnostic adaptive sampler that treats token commitment as an online stopping problem. LESS implements mutual-stability sampling through a joint stability rule that makes a masked position eligible for unmasking only when its top-1 prediction has high confidence, its top-1 token persists across recent reverse steps, and its predictive distribution is stable under top-K inter-step Jensen--Shannon divergence. We evaluate LESS on Dream-7B, LLaDA-8B, and LLaDA-1.5-8B, covering full-sequence diffusion and semi-autoregressive blockwise sampling regimes, across seven benchmarks spanning general knowledge, math, and code. LESS improves average accuracy over strong training-free adaptive samplers while using 72.1% fewer reverse steps than fixed-budget decoding. Since each reverse step requires a Transformer forward pass, these step-count reductions translate into fewer forward evaluations, lower measured wall-clock latency, and lower estimated inference compute.